Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=walterwhite]what percentage of the population do you think could be happy with pure onanism? I wonder if it’s higher than generally recognized. I bet it’s at least 10%, but people are pressured socially to interact with each other. we could have less social problems if people didn’t interact with other humans
also, plushies should be encouraged.
and we should be giving tax credits for sex robots.[/quote]
@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.@ Walterwhite/scaredycat/publicdefender/snapdoodlepoopsmearstupidhandleoftheminute
The cheaper government option would of course not be robots. It would be plush solutions and some sort of lubricant.
Yiffing as public policy (I needed Wikipedia for that word).
Summary:
Discussion of educational policy to debate over tax dollars for sex with robots and stuffed animals in just 118 comments.
Score!!!!!
I have now won the internets.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]id like to see more of a pro-masturbation agenda. it just seems healthier. who will speak for the onanists?[/quote]
I think a particular parrot will.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17468
Read and be pleased.
Or horrified.
Or stimulated.
Ewww.Participant[quote=walterwhite]id like to see more of a pro-masturbation agenda. it just seems healthier. who will speak for the onanists?[/quote]
I think a particular parrot will.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17468
Read and be pleased.
Or horrified.
Or stimulated.
Ewww.Participant[quote=walterwhite]id like to see more of a pro-masturbation agenda. it just seems healthier. who will speak for the onanists?[/quote]
I think a particular parrot will.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17468
Read and be pleased.
Or horrified.
Or stimulated.
Ewww.Participant[quote=walterwhite]id like to see more of a pro-masturbation agenda. it just seems healthier. who will speak for the onanists?[/quote]
I think a particular parrot will.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17468
Read and be pleased.
Or horrified.
Or stimulated.
Ewww.Participant[quote=walterwhite]id like to see more of a pro-masturbation agenda. it just seems healthier. who will speak for the onanists?[/quote]
I think a particular parrot will.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=17468
Read and be pleased.
Or horrified.
Or stimulated.
Ewww.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You only need one. Educate yourselves on closed sales prices (actually your agent should be doing that) and stick to your guns. You get there with patience and a little hard work.[/quote]
I second that.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You only need one. Educate yourselves on closed sales prices (actually your agent should be doing that) and stick to your guns. You get there with patience and a little hard work.[/quote]
I second that.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You only need one. Educate yourselves on closed sales prices (actually your agent should be doing that) and stick to your guns. You get there with patience and a little hard work.[/quote]
I second that.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You only need one. Educate yourselves on closed sales prices (actually your agent should be doing that) and stick to your guns. You get there with patience and a little hard work.[/quote]
I second that.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You only need one. Educate yourselves on closed sales prices (actually your agent should be doing that) and stick to your guns. You get there with patience and a little hard work.[/quote]
I second that.ParticipantAt a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.
Your argument is invalid.
ParticipantAt a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.
Your argument is invalid.
ParticipantAt a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.
Your argument is invalid.
-
AuthorPosts
